Hacker News Reader

Comment by aisenik | Hacker News Reader

I'm a transgender woman. Applying your thought process seems to me, inevitably, to mean I can't live in society.

I work downtown cooking for a bar (despite my deep involvement in tech as a child/teen and early work programming and some infrastructure stuff, life's challenges haven't enabled me access to significant wealth or appreciable social status). I've found survival, and I deal with drug addicts, mentally ill, the deeply traumatized and abandoned. The biggest thing anyone needs in these circumstances is love and acceptance.

Coming from a place of privilege, your leaning to exclude the suffering from society is wildly antisocial and a leading cause of the rise in "eat the rich" mentalities.

View on HN

Their keyword is unwelcomed behavior, there was no mention of identity. Unless you're behavior is out of control, this doesn't apply.

Who gets to define "out of control behavior"? Mostly people who aren't transgender women. It's not like it's unprecedented for being transgender to be criminalized under the pretense of not "burdening public life of others", or that it's "unwelcome and unsocial behavior". This isn't even your typical "slippery slope" argument, this is a slippery slope that we've already slipped down and that we're still trying to climb back up.

For many, just being transgendered and not attempting to pass as cisgendered is unwelcomed behavior.

I think the issue is the choice of word 'unwelcomed'. Aggressive may be better in capturing (what I assume is) the author's intent, but I would still find it a bit lacking. Some homeless behavior isn't aggressive but is unpleasant enough to cause people to make changes to avoid it. How do you describe such behavior without also describing behavior that a different group may choose to avoid that they really shouldn't be avoiding?

Maybe we can define it as aggressive or unsanitary. Not perfect, but it is the closest I can get without shooting over the intent.

However we have to define it so that it can be an issue we can actually address.

My identity remains unwelcomed behavior, and though the focus on my identity is entirely predictable, it is included to highlight my experiences as an unwelcomed member of society not as my experience as a trans woman.

I don't think you being transgender relates at all to what the parent post was saying. No one wants to watch someone shoot up heroin on the sidewalk (and potentially step on a dirty needle). No one wants to second hand smoke crack. It's a public safety issue to move some of these activities out of public spaces.

I'm not even commenting on whether these things should be legal in private, but there are very good reasons they shouldn't be allowed in public.

Okay, so, guys.

People literally think i'm a child molester. People like my dad. People like the two guys who assaulted me for absolutely no reason, in public, while no bystanders did anything whatsoever (as a trans woman, i'm glad he police weren't called -- my friends have been arrested and charged in similar circumstances).

Get out of your bubble.

That’s an entirely separate issue to what this post is about though. This is about making drug use legal.

Not really. The original post said the following.

>But I think a community must have ways to discourage or push people out of the public sphere who practice unwelcome and unsocial behavior.

The point is, in much of even modern day US, and even more so in the past, just existing as a transgender individual who doesn't attempt to pass is deemed by a significant portion of society as unwelcome and unsocial.

When you tie discrimination to what is deemed unacceptable behavior, you encounter an issue when deal with a society that deems acceptable behavior as unacceptable.

> When you tie discrimination to what is deemed unacceptable behavior, you encounter an issue when deal with a society that deems acceptable behavior as unacceptable.

No one is tying discrimination to the issue though. It’s 100% about public health. See my examples about dirty needles and crack smoke.

Your quote is exactly what I was responding to, but I would say my point is that solutions have externalities and if you provide a framework for social exclusion it will be used against the people least able to support and protect themselves.

The point is that what people find to be "socially unacceptable" in public is totally arbitrary.

Why do you all really care if I smoke crack in public?

Health is not arbitrary. Why do I care if you smoke crack in public? Because I don’t want to breathe your second hand crack smoke. I’m shocked that this point is being lost in the discussion as it seems quite obvious.

what if they do it in a designated smoking area?

Still not good enough: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...

that link is about second hand smoke indoors. I wasn't specific, but I meant outdoors.

I question that the needed ventilation and filtering systems would be worth the cost. Also, crack makes people kinda crazy, no? Do you really want rooms full of people smoking crack everywhere? I know I'm talking about second hand smoke (which would be awful) but there are tons of other reasons this is a bad idea.

I'm honestly confused at your response. I am talking about people smoking outdoors in a designated smoking area and you keep talking about ventilation and filtering mechanism and rooms full of smokers. are we having the same conversation?

> Do you really want rooms full of people smoking crack everywhere?

I don't think anyone should smoke anything in public indoor spaces. it's unfair to people who have to breathe it. outside, at a designated smoking area? smoke whatever you want. I won't be inhaling it.

> Also, crack makes people kinda crazy, no?

maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. if they start acting aggressive, we already have laws against that.

I've now seen this debate play out many times over the years. people talk about health concerns, litter, violence, and all kinds of things like that. but it's already illegal to litter and it's already illegal to threaten people. if it's not already, it should be illegal to leave dirty needles around. but I think these are all just ways to avoid saying what people really mean: they just want drug users banished from their sight so they don't have to think about it.

> we already have laws against that... it's already illegal to litter and it's already illegal to threaten people. if it's not already, it should be illegal to leave dirty needles around.

Perfectly said. It's amazing how often this train of thought derails the discussion about drug legalization.

> they just want drug users banished from their sight so they don't have to think about it.

This by the way is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. There's all kinds of stuff I don't want to watch people do in public, hard drug use is near the top. It's pretty weird that people think it's some sort of right they have (or should have).

I mean, it's a legitimate opinion in the sense that everyone is entitled to have opinions, but I can't agree that "unsightly behavior" is a good standard for justifying the use of state violence. just think about how many things your (proverbial) conservative uncle would consider unsightly in public and how many people might agree with him.

By this logic, literally everything would be acceptable though. Should people be allowed to have sex in the street? Part of living in society is placing the limit somewhere. I agree that it's debatable if the limit is here or not but it's definitely not clear cut that it isn't. There's a very good case to be made against using hard drugs in public and I think there's a good chunk of people that agree with that.

tbh, I'm not sure why people shouldn't be allowed to have sex in the street. no one is saying you have to have these people over for dinner or hire them for a job. they can still be denied entrance to restaurants and generally shunned from polite society. all I'm saying is maybe they don't need to be locked up.

All of society is going to be a compromise. You represent one extreme just as the theoretical conservative uncle represents the other. Meeting somewhere in the middle is the only way to have a functional and healthy society. I think most people would agree that hardcore drug use in public is not desirable. Like I said, I think it's worth debating but don't be surprised when the end result is repeatedly in favor of suppressing behavior like that.

Well, it would be second hand crack vapor, which I really doubt would have any effect on others at all. Cocaine in small receational doses really isn't that harmful to begin with, let alone second hand microdoses. And what if I don't want your second hand gasoline fumes? I don't want or own a car, why should you get to drive one around in public? I absolutely guarantee you that your exhaust fumes are worse for my health than my second hand crack vapor is for your health.

1. Your resultant behavior in public 2. The consequences to everyone of your addiction.

Arrest me on the basis of my resultant behavior then, if it necessitates that. Have you ever smoked crack? I have, a lot! What consequences? What behavior are you expecting from me?

As an addict, quite a bit.

As a casual user, keep it indoors and I don't really care. I'll still throw your pusher in jail for a while.

I think you're misinterpreting the grandparent post because they said "unwelcome and unsocial behavior". I believe they were trying to talk more about practical problems.

No one really wants to have to deal with used heroin needles on the ground.

The attitude that trans people should be prevented from living in society is still widespread. A large number of people throughout the world think that it's damaging to society, harmful to children, etc... to have non-cis, non-straight people of any kind visible in public. Within the past few days, Nazis[0] disrupted a Pride march.

So I do think, stepping up a meta-level that a general opposition to using force to suppress people and behaviors that some or a majority of society sees as degenerate, dirty, or a threat to public safety (but not a direct harm to others) relates to the grandparent commenter being trans.

[0] No Godwin's Law here - literal Nazis: https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AACC...

> but not a direct harm to others

The argument is that public drug use is a harm to others. I don't see how shooting up on the street has anything to do with being trans. One is a public health hazard, the other is a personal choice.

Yes there exists discrimination against trans people. That's an entirely separate issue that is not helpful to discuss with the original topic. We should be able to decide if we want second hand smoke, dirty needles, strung out people... in public without poisoning the debate well by bringing in non-related issues.

as a transgender woman I'm very consciously aware that I am considered by many the dregs of society -- worse than the drug addicts shitting on your streets. this is not a rational belief and it's not going away.

it's this fundamental lack of perspective that leads to y'all blithely supporting policy that will end with egregious human rights violations.

everything that sucks in our society is a result of how we've designed it. come to reality. your ideologies kill people.

it really sucks that "tech" has been fully subsumed by capital -- many of the visionaries that made the endless wealth fountain possible shared a vision of an equitable future that brought a better world and it was rooted in anticapitalist, social justice oriented philosophy. that feels so dead, these days.

While I absolutely believe that you get treated unfairly and that's a terrible thing, it has nothing to do with not wanting to step on needles or inhale crystal meth smoke. I don't even see why you're equating the two because one seems objectively horrible (hardcore drug use, with side effects, in public) and one isn't bad at all (being a trans person).

because of this: everything that sucks is the result of a system we've designed.

these people are victims of social views and policy as much as me. they aren't "hardcore drug use" they're people with a serious illness that develops as a result of something about our biology, culture, and environment.

They would be hurting other people if they used their drugs in public though, where you aren't. I also don't agree that people have no free will and can't be held responsible for their actions. Not everyone will make "good" choices and that's not society's fault. We need to reinstate some level of personal responsibility.

you've jumped to a conclusion, that also denies agency to people, that i don't share.

i believe strongly in accountability. which is why i believe, as a society, we must hold ourselves accountable and that means facing the hard truths such as: any of us posting here is wealthy in some way and that wealth has come at the cost of suffering and death in some way. the very least we can do in this (potentially last?) period of widespread economic development is work to build systems that are humane and healthy. it's not going to happen overnight, and it will never happen if we build a world that hides the unpleasant things from the public.

we see the impact of the problem, but if your solution is to hide it then you haven't identified the actual problem and in this case externalizing the cost of actual human lives and suffering.

Yes, I think we would never agree on most of this. For me accountability begins and ends the individual level. I can never be accountable for someone else's actions and they can never be accountable for mine.

I think generally in society we've accepted a structure in which the people with more power (e.g. higher in the org chart) are ostensibly responsible and accountable for the actions of those under them. This is largely the same concept. I do not understand how you expect to have a functional, just, and free society based solely on individual accountability if you can just externalize human suffering and stash it elsewhere

Sure, in the artificial construct of "work" you have accountability. You don't have a "boss" of your life though, you are solely responsible for yourself.

> I do not understand how you expect to have a functional, just, and free society based solely on individual accountability if you can just externalize human suffering and stash it elsewhere

You must accept that there will be some level of human suffering (quite a lot of it actually). It's quixotic to believe this will ever go away. All humans die eventually after all. Other than that, empathy at the individual level will bubble up in aggregate. This will vary from person to person. Some people want to go volunteer their time for charity, some won't. Again, this is all an immutable feature of living creatures.

You can't second hand smoke crack, that's not really how it works at all.

As for heroin, you can't just arrest people for shooting up in public and hope that's going to stop the problem.

The kinds of people who shoot up or light up a pipe in public are at such a low point in their life that the disincentive of arrest (and fines/jail) means literally nothing to them. They're also often homeless. Where exactly do you expect the homeless junkies to shoot up?

People doing hard drugs in public isn't like someone smoking a joint while walking down the street or even like someone drinking a 40 oz in public.

Instead, the better option is to take a pragmatic approach. In my city, in areas of high drug use, they have put needle disposal bins in the public toilets and other places people shoot up. Surprisingly, they actually do get used and have significantly reduced the number of used needles on the street.

> You can't second hand smoke crack, that's not really how it works at all.

Apparently, you are incorrect:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/39528...

> As for heroin, you can't just arrest people for shooting up in public and hope that's going to stop the problem.

The problem is that they are shooting up in public, so if you take them out of the public then it sort of does stop the problem.

Then it means you simply don't deserve freedom. Your failure of being able of logical thinking will be your undoing. The context of this article and comment is that people are being arrested and have their live ruined despite them acting as well behaving citizens. The comment you're responding provides a solution to the problem that merely involves a small inconvenience. You then erroneously that this inconvenience must also apply to you by twisting some words in a way that strengthens you argument. However the thing you have failed at is the fact that your initial situation is in no way comparable with those of drug addicts. Nobody is arresting you because you're a transgender woman. If you want the privilege of complaining about this then the only way to make it fair is by being treated the same way as those drug addicts. In other words you're saying it is illegal to be a transgender woman and the proposed solution of allowing to be one in private would still make it illegal to be one in public. Except we are not living in this world. It's not illegal at all. People might still discriminate against you but this isn't even remotely close to the same thing as it being written in the law.

Also your conclusion at the end is completely wrong. Prison excludes people from society. Letting them exist in society by imposing some rules is exactly the opposite.

>Nobody is arresting you because you're a transgender woman.

This is just false. Even in 2019.

Prison abolition is a thing. We can do better, but it requires more humanity than your comment displays.

> Also your conclusion at the end is completely wrong. Prison excludes people from society. Letting them exist in society by imposing some rules is exactly the opposite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

I think you are extrapolating too much from my words and jumping to conclusions I did not make, Especially regarding privileges. My main point was that libertarianism goes both ways, you can’t have live free ethos and do what you please but then expect to socialize the physical costs of the behavior without question.

I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

It doesn't particularly seem connected to the parent post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com